Reflecting on the November internationals.

Because this time next year some nation will be basking in the glory of being the World Champions of Rugby, this Autumn series has been very closely observed by the pundits.

And what can this amateur pundit tell you?

Well, New Zealand are the favourites to lift the trophy on home soil. Mind you, they are normally the favourites and don't lift it - proof that everyone raises their game against the AB and you need some luck too to win the tournament. But they have the skill, the depth in most positions, the belief and home-field advantage.

Beyond that? Not sure. In alphabetical order of the "big" sides:

Argentina maybe don't deserve to be here. More than any side they're looking old and one-dimensional. Three years ago they had a great side but retirements, age and playing in France have seemingly removed that. If they don't play well they might not get out of the pool stages this year.

Australia are a team that is close to getting it right. They are a year or so on from England in that building process, getting it right more often than not. They still mess up - England for example - but they should be a real threat. Semifinalists at least, and a reasonable chance at lifting the trophy.

England are a team that is building. If everything works for them and their opponents have an off-day they can beat good sides - Australia take note. If their opponents bully them and keep the ball, they can lose to experienced sides not playing very well - South Africa for example. They are firing, on this November's evidence less than half the time at the moment. That will probably improve a bit by RWC time. They could go all the way - they'll be a bit further along by next year - but they could crash out in the quarter finals too, and that's my guess.

France are in a "because we are French" place right now. Some key injuries hampered them against Australia and their strength in depth is oddly questionable but you never know. They should storm out of their group stages and probably into the semis.

Ireland are a team where it appears, more and more, their stars are past their prime. Their big names can still produce moments of magic, but it's moments whereas last year it was minutes, 2 years ago it was most of the game. If they get lucky those moments of magic could turn a game still but you think it's a matter of luck whereas in 2008/9 it could have been a matter of merit. Getting past the quarter finals seems unlikely.

Scotland are also unpredictable. But, they will have the pool stages to knock the rust off and then they're dangerous as they proved against the Boks. Given recent results, if they play to their potential, quarter finals, maybe, outside bet, semis.

South Africa are hard to judge. They have a number of players getting old, but unlike Ireland's old boys most of them are still performing most of the time. Another year and will they still be doing that? It's hard to see Matfield and Botha getting too old in that time, and they have some younger players starting to slot in and some talented players to return from injury. Smit seems to make them gel and if he can be playing well enough to be there, they could be dangerous. Semi-finals are a must you think, finals are reachable, defending their title might be a match too far though.

Wales are hard to judge too. They are clearly, badly, lacking in strength in depth. I wonder if the magic of Gatland and Edwards is getting a bit stale too. But a lucky run with no injuries and some confidence beating Italy, Ireland and maybe Scotland in the 6N, England and France could fall too - maybe England in the summer are more likely than in Feb - and they played well enough for parts of November to do well. Quarter finals should be achieved. Possibly the semis.

Everyone else? Sorry... partly because our coverage isn't great but I didn't see much by which to judge. Samoa could do nicely, Fiji too, Italy could improve with a year of Magners etc. behind them.

My prediction:

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
France

for the top 4 in that order.

England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland as the losing quarter finalists.

Last weekend of North v South

So who is up or down after the last three weeks?

New Zealand and South Africa up you'd think. Both have some question marks around the depth of their squad and fitting the newer players in to the mix. On that score I think the AB have an edge. Their big change around came last and against Wales - a weakened Wales but still a Wales with 7 Lions in it. They struggled, but won. South Africa really struggled against Italy, and whilst Italy are a far better team than 10 years ago, IN SA they should have handled it a lot better.

Scotland, although they didn't play this week, overjoyed. They beat Argentina twice IN Argentina, and the next week the Pumas stuffed France. Result.

In the "some positives" group you have England, Wales and Australia. England finally beat a big S. Hemisphere side away. Losing to the Maori will have taken the gloss off it though. Australia will be similarly upset by the loss to England despite the circumstance and a lacklustre performance against Ireland. Wales lost twice, but certainly improved and look to have gained valuable experience and comfort playing in New Zealand. Argentina just scrape in here. They were seriously looking a shadow of their former selves against Scotland, but looked great against France.

Those in trouble - France and Ireland. No wins on tour. Seriously not good at this remove from the world cup.

Today's results

Whose up, down, etc?

Well Graham Henry must be up, despite a couple of injuries. Wales looked good for half the match, threatening for parts of it, despite missing two first choice props, first and second choice open sides, first choice outside centre and one winger. The All Blacks coped with Wales whilst they looked good and as soon as they ceased looking good, they cut loose.

Warren Gatland is probably not that pissed off despite Wales getting hammered. Playing the All Blacks in New Zealand is always a big ask. He's found out things about his squad, including some positives and some negatives. And living with the All Blacks for half a match is not a disaster. Shaun Edwards will be more upset because the Welsh defence just went away in the second half and that is his bailiwick. But it's an angry in a "we can work on this and improve" way rather than a "you were useless" way. Lets hope they can improve by next week.

Deans will be disappointed... Johnson happy if not elated. Australia shouldn't have lost, but Giteau forgot how to kick. His front row stood up far better than last week and whilst his loose forwards looked... well were anonymous this week, he's got to know they won't all be anonymous at the same time each week. Johnson, however, produced a team that played some good attacking rugby and doing it won the game. Will they keep it up? Let's hope so.

PDV ought to be worried. Mallet, apart from shaving his head, happy. The second string Boks looked very second string. Worryingly so, if you look at the NZ Maori's performance over the last two weeks alongside the All Blacks. Italy were still thumped, but put up a performance.

But two entertaining matches... better than nothing, even if England did win.

First June tests

Everyone is announcing yesterday's tests as the unofficial start of the RWC campaign - which starts in 15 months or so, and fewer than 20 test matches time.

After the four matches, it's hard to guess who is happiest.

The Boks stuffed Les Bleus. That's been a bogie match for the Boks for a few years, so it must feel good for PDV et al. There's that little question of was it just a bad day for France that will linger but still a great result for South Africa.

Australia must be happy too. Their front row started with 2 caps, and it showed. England dominated the scrums completely and essentially scored all of their points via the scrum - a penalty kick and two penalty tries. Australia showed willing there but were completely outplayed. However, in every other aspect, the opposite was true. Even when Foden and Ashton combined to counter-attack, the next pass was to the only player supporting them... Simon Shaw who was promptly wrapped up, tackled and turned over. That's not to be critical of Shaw, he at least was doing the right thing but where were the other runners to keep pace on the move? Australia completely deserved their win, and as front row forwards come back their scrum will improve. No panic from Deans and a happy glow of satisfaction I think.

New Zealand will be happy too. The red card and sin binning in short order destroyed the game as a contest. Despite that, Dagg, Franks, Vito, Whitelock and Stanley all produced very accomplished looking performances. Crudden - a bit less accomplished but looking like he could grow into the replacement for Carter that the All Blacks have been lacking for some time. Muliaina in particular must be feeling a little worried about Dagg's performance. Franks, Franks, Woodcock and Tialata will make an awesome pool of 4 high quality props. Thorne and Williams are probably still the dominant locks, but Boric, Eaton and Whitelock in some order look good for stepping up to the plate. Thorne will probably go after the world cup, but New Zealand won't be lacking in replacement options.

And, of course, New Zealand have the Maori side too - playing Ireland next week, so a complete second 22 playing internationals gaining experience, match practise and the like.

And finally Andy Robinson must be happy and proud. Beating Argentina in Argentina is always hard. They'd never lost at that stadium until yesterday. He must have concerns too though - his side are still looking limited, albeit less limited than England.

It's also a toss-up for the angriest between Johnson and Kidney. Heaslip and ROG should both know better and they gave the game away. England just looked flat and clueless. It's hard to believe that even if Johnson was solely concentrating on the forwards he'd produce a team that clueless.

But apart from Scotland, it has that feel of business as usual. The Tri-Nations this year and next will sort out the pecking order and barring a miracle it will be a Southern Hemisphere side keeping the RWC on this week's showing. They're only going to build and improve after all.

Non-neutral refs and big wings

Two thoughts from this weekend.

I'm biased - I'm a Crusaders fan. That pass looked questionable to me before it hit Franks' hand. It then looked like it went forward from one player without being kicked to another player on the same side, which sounds like offside to me.

I could be wrong. But the honest answer is, I'm not sure and it's really easy to look at it and think it was a home-town decision. (Interestingly a friend of mine is South African and although he's not sure about that decision he's also not sure, not convinced it was a good call, and he's totally convinced there were a number of other home-town decisions so it's not just my jaded eye.)

And that's really the problem. I don't think, even for the really crap decisions (Spreadbury and Barnes in the RWC07 quarter finals say) that the referees are usually malicious and biased. I do believe that even the best referees are human and occasionally have bad games (ones with several critical mistakes) and will make mistakes in all except their very best games. These mistakes are, hopefully, minor - missing a knock on that doesn't make a difference, making a choice about who to penalise at scrum time when you can penalise anyone etc.

However, when the assistant referee with a broad South African accent tells the referee with a broad South African accent that the side from South Africa made a legal play to beat the side from New Zealand AND it's a play that fills observers from both sides with doubts that it was legal, then there's an extra layer of doubt about the try. Even if it was the right decision and he's vindicated by hours of replays, (he's not because there aren't good enough replays) was he right? Was it an honest mistake? Was it a mistake made by an unconscious hope that his home side would win? No implication of malicious bias, just some doubt... and that's not good.

And then onto wingers. I found myself, for some reason, wondering just how scarred the England management is by Jonah Lomu and that RWC in South Africa. Bannerhan was the person I was watching, who unlike Jonah strikes me as a big, useless lump of a wing. And that, I think, is the problem. They're still fixated on Jonah and his barn-storming runs through defenders, fixated on his size and strength. They're missing the fact that he ran good lines, he pulled defenders, he would (sometimes) pass the ball inside to a player running into a gap he'd made. He wasn't a great, all-round winger (his defensive play could be weak for example because he didn't turn well) but he wasn't just a big, strong lump, he was a skillful attacking player. Bannerhan isn't. He's a big, strong lump. He rarely runs good lines. He doesn't defend. He doesn't create for others. He doesn't threaten well, in a rugby sense - he doesn't pull players to him like Lomu did and like Shane Williams, Vincent Clerc and the like do now. And notice, two of the best wingers in the world today aren't that big. Sivivatu, Habana, Williams, Clerc - that's probably the top 4 in the world and only Sivivatu is a big winger. Rococoko if he gets back to form is another great winger and a big one; Howlett though, not big. Medard, not big, Halfpenny, Earles etc. not big. Great wingers can be big, or small, or like Medard more average in size. It's about lines, speed, finding gaps, attacking the try line, covering the ground and so on. If you're Jonah, or Sivivatu, and you create the odd extra gap by shoving through the maul, that's great, If you're like Habana and Lomu and never think about passing but still score tries, that's fine. Sivivatu actually has a relatively low scoring rate in this Super 14 for example. But he's MADE about half the Chief's tries by breaking the line, penetrating, attracting the last defender and then offloading. That's not to be sniffed at either in a winger.

A good big'un won't always beat a good small 'un, not on the wing, when the ability to shimmy and sidestep can also be critical, but a good small 'un will always run rings around a bad big 'un. And Bannerhan, at club level doesn't really shine. At international level - he looks like a big lump imported for being big. Makes you wonder why...

A tweak to the laws?

The Super-14 is being played with an interpretation to the laws that gets the ball back at the breakdown for the side in attack more often. The Guinness Premiership at least is starting to move the same way (thank god).

However, this change, particularly the "tackler(s) must roll away immediately" implementation is making the definition of the tackled player being held hard to play.

What I propose is the following amendment:

The tackler(s) should hold the tackled player for a quick count of 3 (not 3 seconds, but counting in a normal voice and cadence 1, 2, 3, which is around 1 second). and must have released by the count of 5. The tackled player may hold the ball for a count of 5 from the time of the tackle, but must have released/placed by the count of 7.

Now, there is one obvious problem with this... the tackler(s) will find it much harder to roll away in most circumstances because by the count of 5 there will be a ruck formed around them. So, rather than roll away, that law needs a tweak too. Although the lawyers will have to look it over, something along the lines of:

The tackler(s) must release the tackled player. They must move as far as possible to clear the ruck area. Ideally this is to move away completely and return to their feet however moving their arms clear of the ball and moving so that their torso, arms and legs have minimal impact (e.g. lying on their back with their legs still and arms well clear of the ball and on the ground, granting clear access to the ball for the other side)

would do I think. Maybe with a reinforcement of "the tackler cannot actively involve themselves in the game in any way before returning to their feet."

Heck, with a little work, you could even restore rucking. You might not want to of course, but something along the lines of

Players may be moved from the immediate proximity of the ball by a predominately backwards movement of the foot applied to their body. Rucking must take place on the torso below the armpits, the central parts of the arm, forearm, thigh and shin. The rucking action must be controlled, with one foot clearly planted on the ground (no "rock climbing" style rucking) and must be safe in the opinion of the referee - clearly avoiding the head, neck and all joints

would work, don't you think? Maybe combined with making offences to the rucking laws clearly yellow card with a strong bias towards red cards for dangerous play should be included, along with the ability for the referee to ask the TMO for advice on rucking when he is not sure if there is an offence or of its severity. The TMO should quickly be able to rule on one foot on the ground, predominantly backwards movement, missing the joints after all. If all of those are OK, then you're really in penalty-only territory if you're missing the "near the ball" bit... which might be harder to rule on but the ref can usually tell that.

Overall, hopefully, it clears up a messy grey area and reduces the number of daft penalties... More rugby, less kicking at goal. Result!

Team of the tournament

It's going to be hard to look outside teams in blue for this side, and largely Les Bleus at that.

Front Row: All French. This was an area of some debate - Euan Murray and Adam Jones held their hands up and had to be considered, as did the Scottish hooker for his line out work. The problem? Overall the French scrum dominated all the other sides and were sufficiently dominant to get the call. Castrogiovanni was the other person in contention - the only Azzuri to get considered this year sadly. Castro was not the force he was last year, nor the force he is for Leicester though.

Second Row: All French again. All Scottish as a consideration - the scrums weren't great from Scotland until today against Ireland, but their line out work was amazing. But the French were good at scrum, line out and in the loose and edged it on all round play.

Back Row: All French yet again. There was a lot of competition here. Ireland were pretty good here, the Killer B's too for Scotland, Ryan Jones when fit, Lewis Moody too. But that balance and the incision that they always delivered plus being a consistently selected group gets them the call.

Half Backs: Parra in 9. Was there ever any doubt? Mike Phillips in his one outing looked good and showed how much Wales had missed him but it was only one outing. Sexton and Parks are really the only contenders at 10 - although Jones never looked bad, he never had good service and couldn't shine. Tranh-Duc was solid and fired his outside backs magnificently but never really had any adversity to test him either. Parks, man of the match in 3 matches this 6N gets our first non-French blue shirt.

Centres: Basteraud, BOD and perhaps surprisingly Hook are the three into two spaces here. Basteraud gets the nod as the crash-ball centre. Hook just edges out BOD - both were good in defence in different ways but too often Hook was a ray of hope in attack with a massive array of skills that he brought to the position. BOD, on the other hand, is starting to look a bit old and slow for the position and was never really incisive or creative save one moment today.

Wings: Here France's rotation has left the door rather wide open because it makes their 4 wingers not up for selection. This gets Williams on one wing, Earles on the other. Two fast, try-scoring wingers, and with nicely complementary styles of play too.

Full Back: Really only Byrne and Poitrineau were up for consideration here. Scotland played too many, Ireland too. We all know Clement can be flaky but he wasn't in any of these games whilst Byrne got sin-binned and may not have cost Wales the match, but didn't help their cause.

So, there you are 11 Frenchmen, 1 Scot, 1 Irishman and 2 Welshmen.

The worrying thing? France seem to have rotated out a number of their more senior players, through injury or otherwise, and replaced them with players who gain them in terms of speed and youth and haven't appeared to cost them in terms of talent, stability and execution under pressure. Jauzion is now the player possibly under most pressure - he is getting old, relatively speaking and a bit like BOD he is adding maturity and experience whilst gradually losing the cutting edge.

The unexpected positive? Wales had, for the first time, their first choice front row and scrum half today and looked like an entirely different side. It was a bad 6N for Wales, but not all is dark for the future although the strength in depth I thought they showed last year seems to have evaporated somewhat, sadly. Scotland produced a try and rewarded their coach and their efforts with a good win today. They're not the finished product but if they continue to grow and England continue to stagnate at best and slide backwards to my eyes they might get out of their pool in the RWC next year. Positive for me: England's decline seems to be continuing. Although Flood, Foden and Ashton looked good in their one game. Will England decide to play a more expansive game and use these talents? Sexton's replacement of ROG wasn't really unexpected, but Earls' emergence is good and he might slide in to 13 when BOD hangs his international boots up.

Coaches who have shot their bolt...

Come 15 months or so time, a lot of international rugby coaches will be looking for new jobs (or in some cases retiring, possibly covered in glory, possibly not).

But you have to think that there are two teams that will be, barring miracles, out on their ears. Those teams would be the current England and Wales teams - in particular two English giants, Edwards and Johnson.

The much vaunted defensive maestro has produced a defence that is particularly and peculiarly vulnerable to both giving away yellow cards and falling apart as soon as it has a player missing. It's a bad combination and it cost Wales their games against England and certainly helped the Irish feel much more comfortable too. Gatland seems to have produced high-risk but spectacular rugby. Wales, when it all clicks, have produced comfortably the most exciting attacking rugby of the contest, and have produced it in just about all the games. There are errors, and those errors were critical against France but in general the errors are those of ambition and aren't critical save in stopping Wales scoring - they don't usually knock on and give up points.

The problem is, I believe, that the Edwards defensive system has been around too long. It's a good system - don't get me wrong - but it's long enough in the tooth that coaches are working out how to break it (Wasps have been struggling defensively too remember) and international sides are good enough to really exploit the weaknesses.

But, both Gatland and Edwards will be, if you want more exciting rugby, in a stronger position that a certain M. Johnson. He's revealing why coaches and managers need experience. He's created a team that panders to locks - 1-10 and usually 15 are pretty good and in the right places to defend, create scrums, line outs and the like. But the 10-12-13-14 activities seem to completely elude him. Why bother to give fast ball, as a lock he wants the 10 to kick for metres and another lineout - slow ball forces that choice. If the 10 is just doing that, the 12 being in the right places to give a good option is actually a bad thing - and England never had a 12 supporting either 10.

Don't get me wrong yet again - there are certainly times that this is the right tactic. But good rugby has several game plans that are changed and adapted in light of the situation in front of the players on attack (on defence the choices are fewer in some respects I think because you tend to have to commit as a team to a unified approach) and as we are seeing boring rugby is, provided you keep a full team on the field, easy to defend at this level. All it takes, as Ireland showed last week, is one slip in concentration and you lose. England are going backwards not forwards... and the buck has to stop at the top table.

England v Ireland

How the mighty are fallen...

England look a shadow of their former selves. Not the side that got thumped all over the park in November, but certainly of the 2003 generation and even the 2008 generation. Not helped by a boss who seems to have forgotten the rules of rugby... take it into a maul and it's use it or lose it, and he's complaining because his maul went forward then stalled and they lost the ball.

The total lack of ambition and creativity that appeared against Italy was back, once more, and against a side like Ireland there needs to be both to make space and chances. In fact, if you think back to Wales, there wasn't anything creative there so much as Wales self-destructing.

Ireland deserved to win. England defended for the most part well, but as I wrote only a couple of hour ago of the Italy v Scotland match, a good defence is no longer enough. The better sides, which I'm not sure really include Ireland any longer, can unpick the defences - Ireland really only created 3 good chances because of poor conditions and stiffling (illegally so in my opinion) defence, but those 3 good chances turned into 3 tries and the points that scored the victory.

But Ireland are no longer looking good, in fact I might go so far as to say they are looking poor. I'm not quite sure why - sure the conditions today didn't really help, but I'm suspecting that it's old bones and that experience that clicked so well last year for the "golden generation" is turning more into "golden girls" territory as the spirit is willing but the body is just too slow, taking that extra second or two to recover from the last burst of effort and so on. Rugby is one of those odd games where experience makes a huge difference but it can suddenly click from experience into being too slow. In many other sports you'd expect a player to find their feet after 10 caps or so, in rugby 10 caps is inexperienced still... 25 or so is established, 80+ is experienced but over 100 is rare. Ireland are clicking that 100 barrier with 3 or 4 players and I think they're too old rather than experienced... it's a shame to say it of them but I think they've shot their bolt and they're in decline.

Johnno and Johnny will be under fire tomorrow I'm sure. Johnno won't be sacked - he might deserve it or not, but who would you replace him with at this point in the RWC cycle? He'll stay until the cup and then they'll get shot of him asap unless he pulls off a miracle. He might decide to fall on his sword but I doubt it - my feeling is that the confidence that goes with his career as a player is giving him a false air of confidence, tipping into arrogance, about his ability as a manager.

Johnny Wilkinson though... there is a lot of commentary saying it's up to the 9 and 12 too - which in some ways it is. But he's still making poor choices when it is clearly his choice. Then he's failing to demand quality ball from 10, demand the 12 be in an attacking position. If you watch Wales, Ireland, South Africa, even New Zealand, the 10 runs the game in those aspects too. In France it's more of a 9-10 partnership and the 9 as le petit general, in New Zealand the 12 as second five-eighth can take control but he's often an outlet, other-footed kicker rather than the primary shot caller. Wilkinson seems to have lost his confidence in his ability to read the game properly - or perhaps he's feeling too constrained by the style of play the manager wants - and that is spilling over into his ability to control the players around him.

Apparently Johnno wants stability. He can be stable and pick the same side for France and get stuffed in two weeks time. Maybe that will open his eyes? England really failed to execute from 6 to 15, and struggled at 2 as well. Maybe they just all had a synchronised bad day... it can happen. But you'd have to say that 8, 10, 12 have been poor throughout this campaign and through the November tests. How many chances do you give them?

Italy v Scotland

It's hard to be sure what to write about this match without it sounding incredibly rude.

Italy always have a somewhat limited game-plan and this time was the same. They generally execute within those limits pretty well. Scotland, however, on a hard pitch in the early Italian Spring sunshine seemed not to have a clue. It wasn't a case of Italy dragging them into an arm-wrestle so much as Scotland thinking that Italy would be easy to crack and not really trying.

It has to be said that, overall, Italy deserved to win. Although they stayed safe for most of the match, the real moments of ambition almost all came from Italy and their try came from a combination of a 10-12 scissors that was executed at speed and close to the defensive line making it work really well, followed by Italian players running good supporting lines. It was a move that Graham Henry would have been proud to see his All Blacks execute - although he'd be rather worried if it was the only good move in the game!

It's hard to be sure from one match but you would have to say that Italy are starting to look like a side with defensive structure and maturity, which you might expect, combined with the ability to execute quality attacking moves on occasion. If they can add some of that flair more often and with a bit more skill and/or luck they will develop into a side that can challenge in that tier that the good Northern Hemisphere sides are occupying. The big 3 from down South will still be too much for them, but don't be surprised if they beat England, Ireland and France, at home at least, in the next few years, as well as beating up on Scotland more regularly and Wales if they slip a little too.

Wither away Scotland though? They're defensively sound MOST of the time - but inflexibly so. That inability to adapt screwed them against Wales with the yellow cards, and I think screwed them this week when the attack came in a way they didn't expect. You can argue that good defence wins matches - if you let them score less points than you do, you win after all - but Wales, France, Ireland, now Italy, certainly New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and Argentina in a good year - and increasingly after they join the tri nations - are all good enough to unpick defences, in the cases of some of those sides almost at will. Scotland will, if they don't improve their flexibility in defence and even more their ability to score points in attack become the perennial Wooden Spoons - a proud nation in decline.

Wales v France

This is going to sound odd, but Wales in defeat this week were far more impressive than winning two weeks ago.

Why? Because unlocking France's defence with a full 15 men on the pitch twice and nearly unlocking twice them more - but for a dropped pass by Charteris and a pass too late by Roberts is a good result against the team that are clearly the best in the Northern Hemisphere at the moment. Head and shoulders the best you'd have to say and that win against SA in November is looking ominous. Ireland, and remember this is an Ireland we thought would be going for back-to-back Grand Slams, only managed one try and struggled to get that and never looked like getting more.

Wales have an uncomfortably large number of areas where they need to improve - the whole first half, the scrum, line out, passing, offloading, decision making to start the list off, but it isn't all bad - despite the errors they played their part with pride and made for a compelling game. Wales can hold their heads high despite losing.

And, despite the two tries that France scored you would have to say that Wales weren't broken in defence so much as error prone in attack given they were both interceptions. OK, that's harsh on Shane Williams who offloaded reasonably and his team mates didn't react as quickly as Tranh-Duc did, but Hook's intercepted pass was a shocker.

Add to that a wild and exhilarating game with a close finish again and it made for an exciting Friday night.

Can Gatland and Williams get it together for next year - 6 Nations and World Cup? I don't know. But Wales are still breaking in Roberts and Hook as a partnership, and Hook in a 13 jersey. Rees was a lot better than Cooper in the 9 jersey... when Phillips is fully fit as well that could be an exciting clash for the starting berth. Two missing locks, a missing prop and hooker - it's not all doom and gloom for Wales for either despite 2 loses so far.

The Italian Job

England went to Rome and burgled a win that, to be honest, they didn't deserve.

Italy always play a fairly limited game, although in fairness it was both less limited and much faster than they showed last week in Ireland. The problem wasn't with that, it was that England went back into their shells and played an incredibly limited game back at them. This, quite efficiently, played right into the hands of the Azzuri who could kick ball away knowing that England would kick it back. In fact Italy's kickers won those duels time after time, and if Italy's line out had been a little more solid they could have punished England more severely.

Probably the best illustration of this was the sin-binning of Catrogiovani. In the previous 3 6N sin bins this season there were an average of 15 points scored by the side a man up. In this one? 3-3. Why? England, even with an extra player, wouldn't and didn't keep their hands on the ball. They had about 30% of the possession in that 10 minutes instead of 70% and quite a lot of that 30% was in their own half. Stupid, dim-witted and against any side with a bit more ambition than Italy they could easily have LOST the time that they had a man advantage.

The table will show France and England on top, but unless England play a lot better than that, it won't last come next weekend.

Contrasting wonderful matches

Wales v Scotland proved to be a wonderful match because it was so close. For 60 minutes you'd have to say that Scotland were comfortably in control and deservedly so. In the last 20 minutes Wales started to claw their way back, in the last 10 they started to look like they might win. A decision with the scores tied that there was time to restart was made - if Scotland had kicked the ball out you'd have to think there wouldn't have been time to set the scrum but they kicked it properly and Wales scored to win.

Two yellow cards for the Scots over the last ten minutes clearly affected that outcome.

It will be interesting to see what the other commentators think of the first 60 minutes. Wales' vaunted and talented backs failed to fire, to some extent so did their back row. Speaking personally I'm inclined to lay the blame for this at the feet of Cooper, the stand-in scrum half. He had an unfortunate tendency to take a step or two sideways and often slightly backwards before passing. This has the effect of letting the defenders be a step or two closer to the rest of the backs putting them under that much extra pressure. This has the tendency to knock on and cause the backs to dump off to the forwards in bad positions, with the forwards flat-footed and tackled backwards, which reduces the things the back row can do because they're running backwards each time. Other players made mistakes, often frustrating ones, but they were odd mistakes rather than systemic ones and players will make mistakes, it's the nature of the game.

Another thought - Wasps have struggled in the last season and a bit in the Premiership. In particular their defence has been punctured time and again. The Wales squad are more talented than the Wasps squad overall, but so are their opponents and the international sides are working out how to unpick the Welsh defence. Do they need to change the systems to account for this?

France v Ireland was brilliant for a different reason. France were brilliant. Ireland, sadly, were not. But, as always, France in full flow are compelling and wonderful to watch and this game was no different. This France was Les Bleus that put everyone to the sword the attacking was fluid and precise, the defending was aggressive and precise. If France play like this for the rest of the 6 Nations they are going to win. If they can play like this for the next year or so, they could win the RWC even though it is in New Zealand.

It appears from news reports that Tom Evans has a serious back injury. Let us all hope that it is not as bad as feared and that he makes a full and speedy recovery.

A farewell and a new beginning

Rugby, institutionally, does many things badly as well as many well. One of the things it's done really well is say Farewell and Thank You to Bill McLaren. To send off someone called "The Voice of Rugby" with a minute's silence would seem odd at best. A minute, more than a minute actually, of applause and cheers from the crowd and the players to show their appreciation was very moving.

And then we had the rugby. Three hours of it didn't really live up to the hype. Ireland v Italy was turgid and dull. Ireland looked like a side in second gear in the first half, and not even that high in the second half. Italy never got out of first gear by international standards but never looked like they could do more either. It might be a very bad 6N for the azuri but if Ireland play like this again they'll lose their other 4 matches, possibly badly.

England v Wales started where Ireland v Italy left off. That's not entirely fair - Wales defended heroically although you have to wonder how much of that was heroic defence (which Wales under Edwards can certainly deliver) and how much of it was simply dull, predictable England attacking. Some blame must go to the officials too - there's a lovely shot of one Wales line out where there's a gap of about 5cm between the sides rather than the clear 1 metre there's meant to be. Yet the line out was allowed to continue and was disrupted. In another the player had to stretch his arm sideways to take the ball. His outside arm further out to the outside... and this was apparently straight enough to be allowed to continue.

And then there was that moment of madness from Alan Wyn Jones. You could question, given it was so ineffective, if it really deserved a yellow card (although it should really, regardless of that) and for quite a lot of the time it looked like Wales blocked out the worst of it and would go in only 6-3 down. Then a sneak off the side of another breakdown and a try... and one from another quick break just after half time. 17 points rather than 3 due to the sin bin and Wales were always in trouble. However, this seemed to inspire them and if Stephen Jones' pass had gone to a red-shirted hand rather than being intercepted it could actually have been a win for Wales. It made for a good end to the first Saturday and a hope of better things to come.